This is Why They Will Lose
Hat tip to Progressive Delmarva and the Huffington Post.
Look at that photo. For context, this is some Yale students’ reaction to a street preacher and his exhaustive list of sins that will send you to Hell. Now, I know this is me engaging in some stereotyping myself, but those two men do not appear homosexual to me. To me, this picture shows two students, who are probably heterosexual, mocking the preacher by kissing! And if my interpretation of the photos is correct, that is why the forces of hatred will eventually lose, no matter any short term victory they have recently gained in California, Maine and New York. The younger generations, starting with my own, do not care about homosexuality. Look at all those smiles from the onlookers in the photo. No one is horrified at the sight of two men embracing and kissing. No one is shocked.
To the younger generations, homosexuality is as normal as any other subsection of our diverse culture. Sure, it is different to someone who is heterosexual, but only in the way that someone who is white is “different” than someone who is black. The younger generations know this is an innate characteristic, not a choice. And from that knowledge, they readily mock the hateful.
I mean, look at that exhaustive list of supposed sins:
Fornicators. Sodomites. I suppose this means any one who has ever had sex in life without the holy desire to have children is a fornicator. I am sorry, but the whole no sex before marriage and no sex without procreation canard of the Church is as wrong as thinking one’s sexuality is a sin. Oh, and by the way, I included “sodomites” here because, while he could be talking about those evil homosexuals, I think he is really talking about anyone who has had anal sex, which is also evil. š
Homosexuals. Repenting for being homosexual is like repenting for having blue eyes. Street Preacher is wrong.
Liars. We all lie, every single one of us has lied at least once in our lives. Even Republicans. Even David Anderson. Even the Pope. That doesn’t make it right, and hey, this is where I will agree with the Street Preacher. Repent.
Thieves. Again, thou shall not steal. Street Preacher is right on this one.
Masturbators. As with fornicators, these supposed rules against sexuality were just rules to control people. Seriously, if God really cared that I rubbed one out back in high school (or yesterday), then our God is a perv. Street Preacher is wrong.
Obama voters. Democrats. Liberals. This is a sin now? Where in the Bible does it say āThou shalt not vote for the skinny black liberal with a funny nameā or āThou shalt not believe in a welfare stateā or āThou shalt not desire universal healthcare or equality for all.ā You see, if you religious freaks just keep your list of sins to a recognized and universally agreed upon few, like liars and thieves, then you would be golden. Here, you lose all credibility.
Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Atheists. Yeah, there is some tolerance for your other religions. If you are not an evangelical Christian, you are evil. Nice. And the scary thing is, this is exactly what David Anderson and his ilk believe. I always say I am intolerant of the intolerant.
Gangster Rappers. Huh? Now your taste in music is evil.
Drunkards. Potheads. These are sins now? Why does this street preacher not care about murderers? No where on his list is the sin of murder? Being drunk or high is now worst than being a killer? That is probably because this street preacher wants to kill in the name of his God everyone who doesnāt agree with him. He has probably bombed an abortion clinic. He probably cheered the death of Dr. Tiller and those damn liberal churchgoeers in Kentucky.
Feminists. Immodest women. You wonder why I call our evangelical Christians the American Taliban. If this Street Preacher had his way, all women who lose all rights (the right to vote, to own property, to speak, to offer an opinion) and they would be covered in burqas.
DD, sodomy includes oral sex. You need to get out more š
We need to be careful not to use our own broad brushes when pointing out the foolishness of others’ use of broad brushes.
I am a religious liberal. It is a mistake to ‘call our evangelical Christians the American Taliban.’ It is proper to identify a particular evangelical Christian, when he/she is sharing a hateful ‘my way or the highway’ view to be an American Taliban. Not only is it proper, but it is our duty to call them on it.
It is improper to go further. It is quite possible that leaders of evangelical Christian churches are more likely to share hateful views than leaders of non-evangelical Christian churches, due to their fundamentalist view of the Bible. The same thing can be said of the orthodox/fundamental strain of any text-based religion. I think it goes to far to stereotype all evangelical Christians in this manner (as it is for the ‘street preacher’ to stereotype as he does. Again, don’t lower yourself to his level.
One of my sisters is an evangelical Christian. She and I don’t share much philosophically, however hate is not in her heart (sure, she believes that all gays will burn in Hell, but so what?).
If the street preacher had a close friend who belonged on his list (say if his mother was a feminist, or a Democrat), then it would challenge his hatred.
All that said, I agree 100% that time will solve this–the current younger generation will continue to chip away at the older generation’s prejudices, and improve our society in the process.
I apologize for having blue eyes. It won’t happen again.
Dear Friends,
Again, labelling and categorizing people to assuage our own insecurities (no matter where each of us may be on this issues) is an inordinate waste of time. It also generates no end of suffering, for everyone involved. The labellers waste energy becoming upset about the behaviors of others, rather than dealing with their own lives; those labelled – well history has plenty of examples. How much better things could be, if we could all forgive, beginning with ourselves. How much better things would be, if we could all live a little further in tolerance.
Paul, you are right. I am talking about a certain subset of evangelicals, and not the entire group. My apologies.
LOL, anon. I forgot about the oral part of sodomy.
Paul’s comment is thoughtful and good. But expectation that people Other than you ar sinners for stuff largely out of their control (gays now, black people, Jews, and other groups back in the day) still counts as bigotry and should be named. The fact that this gets wrapped up in the form of some religious doctrine does not lessen or eliminate the fundamental bigotry involved.
I like that dirty dancers are on there. I hope Swayze repented before he died…
PB, i AM the younger generation and trust me. we have LOTS of these backwards thinking street preacher Palinites.
“One of my sisters is an evangelical Christian. She and I donāt share much philosophically, however hate is not in her heart (sure, she believes that all gays will burn in Hell, but so what?).”
I mean no disrespect to you or your family, but “so what”? She is wrong. And it is my guess that while she doesn’t HATE gays, she probably doesn’t support same sex marriage. If religious reasons are used to deny rights it is the same as the Taliban. They (the evans) have the luxury however of having many politicians and legislators who support their hateful goals and thus dont usually feel the need to resort to violence. BUt can you imagine if people like street preacher, or RWR felt they had NO representation in congress?
This is a group who has strong beliefs that they feel are backed up by God. you think a piddly little constitution, or lives of infidels are going to stop them if they feel they have no other recourse than violence? Look at the white supremacist groups, or the Westboro Baptist Church.
PB, I’m sure you sister is not a violent person, but if she actualyl believes gays will burn in hell, she is only part of the problem. again, no disrespect.
and im guilty of more than half of those things wooohoooo hellfire awaits!
I agree that the guy with the list of “sins” doesn’t represent everyone on the right. The problem is… a lot of politicians on the right are guilty of using certain “sins” on that list as part of their politics. And the fact that crazy guy added Obama voters, Democrats, and Liberals to his list tells me – that while he may not be representative of a certain party – there’s one party he’s still okay with. This is where Republicans and crazy meet, and it would behoove Republicans to jettison these crazies.
“LOL, anon. I forgot about the oral part of sodomy.” you musta been doin it wrong… not the type of thing one forgets easily.
UI, I think the blue eyes are OK. It’s all that “science” stuff that’ll send you to Hell. Say “Hi” to Galileo and Darwin for me.
On another note, I count 20 things on the list. Depending on whether or not repeated offenses are needed for some of them, I hit somewhere between 9 and 12 of them. And that’s considering that I have no idea what a “Dirty Dancer” is. (Does it have to do with putting Baby in a corner, or does going to a club without showering count?) Here’s a fun game — how many ways are you going to Hell?
notice murderers and rapists arent on his list? guess they are clearing the deck for their coming holy war.
I had a school administrator who would, on the daily announcements before a school dance, remind us that there was to be no “vertical lap dancing”. I assume that is what “dirty dancing” is. I kind of agree with that statement. not because Im against lap dancing… but no one really knows how to DANCE anymore. That kind of dancing is a sin only in that Cary Grant didn’t do what he did that so 50 years later, 13 year old boys could dry hump their way to manhood to the beats of Lil Wayne.
I am planning to work on my Gangster Rapping to up my number of qualifying sins.
I personally am working on Gluttony.
Figures a conservative list of sins doesn’t include Greed.
“Figures a conservative list of sins doesnāt include Greed.”
Particularly since the two behaviors that come in for the most criticism in the New Testament are greed and sanctimony.
Can we work towards mutual tolerance, if not full acceptance of opposing views? I am opposed to those on the right that wish to legislate morality (or their version of morality) and control nonviolent, consensual behavior; I am equally opposed to those on the left that, at times, seem to want to silence their views. The one side praises the street preacher and condemns the two young men, while the other side praises the latter and condemns the preacher.
That said, and basing the following observation only on seeing the picture, I question its authenticity, or rather the authenticity of the event it seems to portray. It looks staged. The street preacher is a walking cliche: outdated clothes, Bible in hand, the list of “sinners” which itself seems more a stereotypical perception of evangelical views than an accurate statement of those views. If it’s real–wow. But it looks more like organized college students working together to make a political statement with a powerful image.
I appreciate A.Price’s comments, and I agree that the views of my sister are bigoted. However she feels that her views are required by her view of God. It’s kind of hard for me to fight that.
She has the right to vote for those who share her views (bigoted or not), and to contribute to those who share her views (bigoted or not).
While I would love to eliminate bigotry (in my family, my town, my state, my country, my planet), let’s get real. I do what I can, including helping to get SB121 passed in Dover this year. I consider my actions to provide more equal treatment for gays in Delaware to ‘trump’ my sister’s views of the treatment in the afterlife for gays (partly due to my views of the life here on earth being top priority, rather than a possible afterlife).
She’s disappointed that she can’t convince me of the error of my ways, and vice versa. It’s a Mexican standoff. That’s life. And so it goes.
As far as there being a bunch of Palinites amongst the younger generation. Sometimes life sucks. But Obama’s polling numbers, when broken into age brackets, show much reason for optimism of the direction our country will be going towards, as it relates to at least racial bigotry. I believe that polls on relationship recognition also shows much more favorable views held by the younger generation.
Are there a bunch of bigoted young skinheads? Sure. And they sometimes make the headlines. But screaming tea bagging Eileen making the headlines does not mean that the country is filled with such folks.
Statistics often mislead. I suspect that the views of the socially median 24 year old is much more supportive of diversity now than they were 20 years ago. The curve of justice is long, but it bends towards justice. ya gotta believe
Chris – the same idea – that this might be a staged picture, crossed my mind. Can anyone verify its authenticity?
Can we work towards mutual tolerance, if not full acceptance of opposing views?
I don’t see much point in mutual tolerance or full acceptance of bigotry in any of its forms. Mutual tolerance or acceptance of a POV that looks to make sure that certain of us are denied the full rights guaranteed by the Constitution seems pointless too.
The bigoted are certainly well within their rights to hold on to their views and to try to elect people with those same views, but they do not have the right to not hear that behavior named for what it is — bigotry.
Hit me up for 10. Guess I get a first class ticket to hell.
If you accept a faith that is based on a text, a literal reading of which notes that all left-handed people will burn in hell, what do you suggest that we should do?
Our country is based on support for freedom of religion. As long as they (the followers of this religion) don’t go around cutting off the left hands of the folks (or murdering, etc), then what is society’s responsibility here?
Sure, call it bigotry. Yell it from the tops of buildings.
When that person feel that their religion’s holy text, passed down directly from their deity, has this rule (not guideline), or truth, it is what it is.
I do not defend their views, but I support their right to hold it, and I understand how they come to view it as more right than (and as a trump over) your (and my) definition of bigotry.
Are you suggesting that (American) society has the right to force the teaching of evolution on families who home school (and whose religious views oppose the science-proven fact of evolution)?
Ok, we can resort to name calling:
1) you are a bigot
2) you are damned
What does this accomplish? No one’s view is changed.
I think that these efforts are like pissing into the wind. What outcome are you expecting?
I’m with Cassandra on this. I can prove a bigot’s a bigot. Care to show me how one proves who’s damned?
I use to be a “live and let live” person, until I realized that a lot of people/bigots/fundies, etc. were only concerned about their rights and beliefs – all the while damning everyone who didn’t agree with them. I swear these guys would be the first ones screaming “crucify him” if Jesus actually returned.
We should have squashed them like a bug years ago. š
Chris Slavins said:
I don’t want to silence anyone. Evangelical Christians like the man above in the picture are free to make a fool of himself on a daily basis. He has a right to his own opinion. What he has no right to is respect. I will never, ever, respect his opinions. And I will never, ever, accept his views. He is a bigot. He is a racist. He is a sexist. He is intolerant.
This is a free country, and he can be a racist, a bigot, and a sexist, all he wants.
But you are insane if you think I must accept his intolerance as a legitimate opposing view. That preacher above deserves to be shunned, must like he thinks a homosexual deserves to be shunned.
And this comes back to Paul’s comment…. views will not be changed on these issues. Sure, we change minds about tax policy and healthcare. But if you believe God hates gays, hindus, feminists, etc., then how am I, a lowly human, going to change your mind? It has always been my belief that bigotry of all kinds dies with the bigot. Sure, some of the hatred is passed down through the generations, from father to son, etc. But generally, with each successive generation, bigotry is less and less. Look at the point of this post. Two generations ago, everyone was in the closet and homosexuals were mocked at will. Now, many are out of the closet and the street preacher and his hate are what is being mocked. Two generations ago, Congress had to actually pass a law to make sure blacks could vote. Now an African American is President.
It isn’t because a racist changed his mind. It is because a whole generation of them died off, and a new more tolerant generation took its place.
I am expecting them to change. And there are few religions that don’t have a precedent of such change when they find themselves behind society’s or the law’s eight ball. Plenty of religions in the US used to have teaching that tried to codify an inferiority of black people. That is rare today. The same kind of history can be found for other groups – Catholics, Jews, Irish, Italians – you name the Other and plenty of religions found biblical teaching to support the bigotry of the day.
But while these folks wrap themselves up in their religion to justify their bigotry, that is no reason not to name that and to point out that their justification for said bigotry is shortlived. Because that is their own history.
And, Paul, maybe you’re too young to remember when the “N” word was tossed around with the ease of saying “How are you?” It was constantly calling these guys out that made a difference.
re: the photo’s authenticity
He’s a real guy, his name is Jesse and he’s a 25 year old evangelical preacher. The Yale School newspaper did a write up on him, which is where that photo came from
http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/university-news/2009/12/04/evangelist-causes-stir/
evangelical preachers on campus are apparently pretty common, UD has one who stands outside of Kirkbride pretty much every day with nice weather.
I’m concerned that the authenticity of the photograph isn’t being discussed. After studying it carefully, I’m convinced that it was staged. Had the “preacher” been holding a sign that targeted one group, like homosexuals or evolutionists, I probably wouldn’t have had a second thought upon seeing it, but he looks more like a stereotype than a real evangelist.
It’s the equivalent of an anti-gay Christian group distributing propaganda with a picture of a male homosexual, complete with tongue ring, inverted triangle necklace, rainbow T-shirt, pink fingernails, hemp wristband, tight jeans, leather sandals, walking a poodle down the Rehoboth Beach boardwalk. A greatly exaggerated stereotype. Know what I mean?
As the saying goes, “they don’t believe in the teachings of Jesus, they only believe in religion.”
Why are the majority of street preachers all about fire and brimstone and eternity in hell, rather than the peace and love that Jesus taught?
Just asking.
The guy wearing the sign is sooooo freaking gay.
why is he wearing a tweed jacket and that newsie cap?
That’s a classic look for gay dudes trying to appear straight. Another signal is the fact that the front sign is being pushed forward by his boner. (I’m like Monk when it comes to spotting gay guys trying to act straight.)
haha. wait wait wait. i have a newsie cap from H AND M. I know I’m not gay… id be totally cool with it if i was…. in fact, my life may be less complicated. His unfortunate fashion choices don’t set off my gay-dar. I request more proof.
First of all, attacking women just because they might be “three-input” women is offensive to me. So, Street Preacher can fuck off to the back of the bus with that one. And then on top of that obscenity, this asshat feels the need to put “dirty dancers” in the same line with “Hindus”? This guy’s sign is just a freakin’ hodge-podge of neo-con boogeymen and Leviticus juice.
public option dead.
the pragmatist wins. I have a bridge for sale. You interested DD?
hoooray change and a new era.
Goood day!
Where are You
Free java casino no download
casino
List flash no download casino
casino
Virtual casino birthday welcome bonus
casino
Flash no download casino without deposit
casino
Internet poker web sites